Pyrrhic Army list ideas

[MarsUltor]

I'm wrapping up my mid-Republican Romans now, and I have them (partly) modeled for the Pyrrhic war period. So now I want to make a Pyrrhic army, but we don't have a list just yet so I'm trying to piece one together. Two questions for anybody:

1) Army List: I assume I should use a modified CoE Imperial Macedonian list since that's the area Pyrrhus is from (????). Is there anything I should add (besides elephants!) or take out? Mr. Jonas' Epirote list is still on the web for WAB, so I thought I'd cross-compare it for troop types. And I think the elephants are supposed to be Indian, though I'm not sure and don't want to assume (since they're the superior type). From what I've read they were supplied to Pyrrhus by THE Ptolemy, who lived to a ripe old age. Should I use the unit limits and profile of the elephants from the Seleucid list?

2) Minis: I'd love to use the Pyrrhic pike from Aventine, but they're bloody expensive compared to Warlord's plastic Macedonians (about half price for the number of unit's I'm planning...). Anybody used the Warlord and are happy with them? Do they seem to have sufficient variation? Warlord also has the Immortal Greeks which I think could be used for Tarentine hoplites and hypapsists (maybe with just a helmet switch). Also, what are good sized units for pikes...24? 32? I'm trying to give them enough size to potentially stand up to a hastati-principes-triarii line (the Successors seem to have beefed up the depth of the phalanx in preference to using a reserve line...).

Thanks for any feedback on army list or minis.

[redben]

Plutarch says that Pyrrhus took "twenty elephants and three thousand horse, twenty thousand foot, two thousand archers, and five hundred slingers" with him to Italy.

Given his previous campaigns against the Macedonian diadochoi I'd imagine the elephants were Indian but I'm not aware of a source that states that. Macedonian Phalanx would be appropriate for his foot. Plutarch describes his foot soldiers as being armed with sarissas (translated in the English version as "Macedonian spears").

[Trev]

Pyrrhus' elephants would have been Indian. Gained in spoils from other successors. This is a good article on the successor elephants.

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Al-Ele.html

[aecurtis]

Yep. Pyrrhus's elephants were Alexander's auld yins, via Demetrios, and thus Asian.

The composition of his army changed somewhat over time. See Jeff's articles comparing what he had against the Romans at Heraclea:

http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Succe ... nario1.htm

...compared to his expedition to Sicily:

http://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Succe ... Sicily.htm

I had originally set aside several units of Foundry Alexandrian pezhetairoi to do the Epirote army, along with their Successor "Royal Guard" for the Chaeonians. But I couldn't resist Aventine's gorgeous figures, to do the three units of ethnic Epirotes. Personally, I wouldn't bother with the plastics. Aventine has also come out with Magna Graecia hoplites, which are just right for the Tarentines early on; and they've done Italian phalangites for later. And Keith informs me that they will very soon be coming out with figures for a "guard" phalanx, so I can even set aside *that* Foundry unit.

I don't know of any reason to believe that Pyrrhus "deepened" the phalanx, by the way.

Allen

[aecurtis]

And yes, you can probably do the army at Heraclea with the CoE web site Imperial Macedonian list. I'd probably use the "Agema" hypaspists for the Chaeonians, and give them sarissas. And I'd give the light cavalry shields.

Allen

[MarsUltor]

Thanks, guys, for your responses. I see that I still have a bit to learn about successor type armies...Romans being pretty simple and practical by nature...Trev, thanks for the article about the ellies. I had heard that Ptolemy supplied them, but I see differently now. THanks.

Allen, I have a couple of follow-up questions:

1. Hypapsists: This name seems to be used for a lot of things. Do you have a source that explains 'hypapsists' as they are used by Alexander as opposed to the successors. Their roles seem to change, or the word is used very generically by authors/ sources. And how are they different from theurophori, which Aventine makes minis for?

2. Colored armor: I see a lot of this in successor armies. Do you know anything about this as it applies to history? Do we have historical examples? Was it widespread, as it seems like it could be expensive?

As for "deepening of the phalanx", I have read (especially in those newer Osprey books, which I know you admire so... ) that successor armies generally did not have a reserve line of phalanx, that they preferred to deepen the phalanx instead. This point was made in referrence to the Romans having unengaged and fresh maniples to throw in. Thus I plan to have my Pyrrhic army phalanx kind of balanced by the a section of acies triplex.

[aecurtis]

I'm going to plead exhaustion tonight, Mars Ultor. It's been my little boy's birthday, and he's worn me out!

But I'll get on this tomorrow. I really ought to drag Jeff Jonas over here, since he's answered very similar questions many times. Plus, he can rattle off the answers off the top of his head, whereas I have to think about them.

So if you detect a burning smell, it's just my old synapses firing.

Back after I've recovered from a wild night of cake, ice cream, and Thomas the Tank Engine playsets...

Allen

[aecurtis]

>>> Allen, I have a couple of follow-up questions:

OK, it's morning, and I'm on the third cup of coffee, so I have a chance at being coherent.

>>> 1. Hypapsists: This name seems to be used for a lot of things. Do you have a source that explains 'hypapsists' as they are used by Alexander as opposed to the successors. Their roles seem to change, or the word is used very generically by authors/ sources. And how are they different from theurophori, which Aventine makes minis for?

Originally, Philip's and Alexander's hypaspists seem to have been flexible troops (as even the pezhetairoi could be when required), and although their armament has been extensively argued, it seems most likely that they had different armament for different missions.

Alexander went to Asia with three thousand-man chiliarchies; one was the "guard" hypasists, called the Agema.

Ultimately, these elite "guard" hypaspists became the Argyraspides, as described in the Wiki link below, and seem to have been formed exclusively as part of the phalanx from then on--with the title being revived for the same function long after the original holders had ceased to be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyraspides

What confuses things is that the terms "hypaspists", "Agema", and "Argyraspides" are used in some cases interchangeably, and in some cases for quite different things, when the Successor armies are discussed by both ancient authors and modern writers. As an example, see this Roman Army Talk thread:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?f ... =entrypage

But for the history of the original Macedonian hypaspists, I think the Wiki summary is agod as any. Follow the citations for the original sources. For the later application of names ("-aspides", "peltasts") see the first two sections here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenisti ... ic_Phalanx

The difference between hypaspists and thureophoroi: the original hypaspists were a particular corps of the Macedonian army, recruited from Macedonians. Thureophoroi were by most accounts a similar multi-role troop type, and seem to have supplanted peltasts as light troops over time (complicated by the *name* Peltastoi showing up applied to heavier troops in Successor armies!) But thureophoroi were generally mercenaries, and could be recruited from pretty much anywhere across the Hellenistic world. See also:

http://www.ancientbattles.com/thureopho ... phoroi.htm

Aas a general rule, thureophoroi were not armored, apart from a helmet. Where they were (normally with a mail shirt), they were know as "thorakitai".

The Aventine Successor "later hypaspists" (which are armored) and "thureophoroi" (which are not) are lovely figures. They'd be useful, respectively, as Macedonian hypaspists (I may replace my old Foundry ones with them eventually, especially since Aventine plans to come out with sarissa-armed versions shortly, for the "alternative armament"), and as generic thureophoroi right through to the end of the period.

>>> 2. Colored armor: I see a lot of this in successor armies. Do you know anything about this as it applies to history? Do we have historical examples? Was it widespread, as it seems like it could be expensive?

This is one Jeff could address at length. Yes, there are definitely contemporary paintings which clearly show Macedonian painted armor. At one time, it was argued that what was shown on the "Alexander sarcophagus" was representative: blue represented iron, yellow represented bronze.; this has generally been discounted, as more wall paintings are "discovered" and analyzed. I'd have to dig to see how many Successor examples there are, but I don't see why the practice would not have continued. Persoannly, I don't like the look that well; the way many paint them, they just come across as too garish: chocolate-box Smurfs! I tend to go with good, gritty, somewhat tarnished bronze! But that's just a matter of taste.

>>> As for "deepening of the phalanx", I have read (especially in those newer Osprey books, which I know you admire so... ) that successor armies generally did not have a reserve line of phalanx, that they preferred to deepen the phalanx instead. This point was made in referrence to the Romans having unengaged and fresh maniples to throw in. Thus I plan to have my Pyrrhic army phalanx kind of balanced by the a section of acies triplex.[/quote]

I don't recall that anyone, hoplite or phalangite, commonly formed a second (reserve) line of phalanx. I'm sure I can be corrected.

There's a lovely diagram online showing the "normal" and "dense" versions of the pike phalanx. I wanted to post it when you raised a similar question on the CoE forum, and couldn't find it... and still can't...

Anyway, the premise is that the phalanx (even in the hoplite era) was more flexible than we may often imagine. Ancient authors describe different degrees of density for specific tactical situations. It has been suggested, with good evidence behind it, that rather than making a dense formation by everyone shuffling sideways (if you've ever done military drill, you know how awkward this can be), it was accomplished by "doubling forwards" the rear ranks: for example, in a 16-rank Macedonian phalanx, the last eight ranks would just come up through the gaps between individuals in the first eight, thus halving the number of ranks, but doubling the density (halving the individual frontage) of the formation.

How much this applies to hoplite phalanxes could probbaly be debated forever. But it seems very applicable to the pike phalanx. We see repeated references to a "dense array", and commentators note that this made for an effective defensive formation that was hard to maneuver. So we conclude that a 16-rank phalanx would make for better forward movement and maneuvering, with confortable intervals etween the troops; while a double-density 8-rank array would make a formidable defense to the front, but would be very difficult to maneuver, and would be vulnerable to attack from the flanks.

So I think you have the general idea; but I'd look carefully at references to "deep" formations to see what the original author was actually describing. And of course, this whole line of thought is guaranteed to give ancient wargames rules writers fits...

Hope that helps some.

Allen

[MarsUltor]

Allen,

Multas gratias tibi et complures annos tuo filio!

Thanks for the reply. Yes, a day of cake and Thomas could fry one's neural network right well (I remember those days...thankfully (or not) my son's last b'day wish (slightly older) was for a Corinthian hoplite helmet...now that he got that he wants a xiphos and hoplon...I don't see an end to this...).

Back on topic, I think I'll not do too much colored armor besides the linothorax stuff.

Two last questions, si tibi placeat:

1. Do you know the symbol that Aventine has for the Pyrrhic shield designs the one that looks like an M ad P put together? (couldn't get the pic to copy). Is that a Pi + Ypsilon + Rho, the first letters of Pyrrhus in Greek? (cf., X + Rho in later Christian times)? That's what I'm thinking...

2. If you might remember the Alexander (Ollie Stone) scene at "Gaugamela" where Alexander rides in to the gap along with some men running on foot armed with sword and shield? Would these have been his hypapsists?

Thanks again for all your useful impartings!

ANdy

[aecurtis]

Hi, Andy:

1) Yes, that is Pyrrhus' monogram. Referring once again to Jeff's work, here's an Epirote coin:

http://ancientbattles.com/Vendel_elepha ... e_coin.jpg

Which Jeff has used for the background to this page, as well as the decor towards the bottom of the page, and as justification for the monogram on the army standard bearer's vexillum:

http://www.ancientbattles.com/Pyrrhus/pyrrhus_01.htm

2) No, and yes. It depends on who is writing about the battle. One opinion is that these were peltasts and other skirmishers (Agrianians and Macedonian archers) who accompanied the Companions in this action; they were posted close by the Royal Squadron, as described by Arrian (see below). I believe that is what Stone is depicting, from their appearance.

But look at Arrian's description of the battle:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/acha ... gamela.php

Go down to paragraph 14, where he says, "...Alexander wheeled round towards the gap, and forming a wedge as it were of the Companion cavalry and of the part of the phalanx which was posted here, he led them with a quick charge and loud battle-cry straight towards Darius himself."

The key is "the part of the phalanx which was posted here". Go back up to paragraph 11, and you'll see, "Of the phalanx of Macedonian infantry, nearest to the cavalry had been posted first the select corps of shield-bearing guards, and then the rest of the shield-bearing guards, under the command of Nicanor, son of Parmenio."

That's referring to the hypaspists, both the Agema and the ordinary ones, and it's clear that they were posted closest to the Companions. Some interpret that they were meant to be a "hinge" between the two; that they're flexibility allowed them to sort of link the dense phalanx and the more mobile cavalry.

So if Arrian is correct, as other writers think, that the infantry accompanying the companions were from that part of the phalanx closest to them in the deployment, then they would most likely have been hypaspists.

You pays yer money and you takes yer choice!

Allen

[aecurtis]

I invited Jeff to join in the fun, and he replied:
____________________

You are doing fine. I never can get on wabforum anyway. But I will say that hypaspists in Pyrrhus' army are even more confusing since they are referred to as individuals not a unit. More like the bodyguards of Alexander.... One of which was his personal shield bearer, and since hypaspist means shield bearing guard.... There you have it.
I agree that Chaeonians are the closest thing to multi-role "Alexandrian" hypaspists in Pyrrhus' army- they were the closest to Illyria- so multi-role suits them.
I don't see why anybody would use Warlord plastic with Aventine and other better figures around. But they will work fine.

The monogram is on a shield on the coins.... Seems like as close to evidence we will get.

Depth of files? Too big a subject. Suffice to say that at some battles pikes formed deeper.... But it seems unlikely that Pyrrhus deployed deeper against Romans. Phalanxes were hardly ever kept in reserve lines.... Off the top of my head I can think of maybe three cases... Gaugamela- Alexander put his reserve hoplites behind the main line. Mantinaea, 207: Philopoemen deployed phalanxes in reserve to good effect. Magnesia- the reserve phalanx was ill advised.

You can post this if it helps.
_______________________

Thanks, Jeff!

Allen

[aecurtis]

See the link to Luke Ueda-Sarson's article above. Pyrrhus acquired part of the herd that Antigonos had inherited from Alexander.

Allen

[MarsUltor]

Another belated "thanks", Allen, to you and Jeff and others who have input. I was surprised that there was that much information out there about Pyrrhus and his army. Like much of early Roman history, I thought it was much likely to be very ambiguous. But you guys have given me a lot of good direction from which to start this project!

Multas gratias!

Andy (Mars Ultor)